|
0 members (),
498
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696 |
While reading the latest regarding the LHC at CERN, I came across an item which stated that when they doubled the energy of the particle Collisions to 14 TeV in 2014...... "The LHC Collider team hope to produce results that could shed light on the possible existence of parallel worlds or multiple universes" I find that facinating, but somewhat premature. After all, they are still looking for the Higgs Boson. All the Scientists are now back at CERN after their Xmas break, have just re-started the LHC, hopefully they will find the 'God particle' rather than Multiple Universes, during the next 12 months before the next big upgrade. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/us-science-cern-idUKTRE7185AQ20110209Just what is the Higgs Boson? Scientific American article here:- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-exactly-is-the-higgs
.  . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Yes, it looks a bit premature, but I guess it's a sign of the optimism and excitement shared by CERN physicists. They eagerly anticipate discovering the Higgs - or several particles serving the Higgs function - within the next few years.
As I understand it, what they will be looking for is a discrepancy in the balance books of gravity. If some of it is 'missing' after the collision, that would match a prediction supporting the theory that it transferred from our universe to a another. I don't see how any experiment could prove that but, thus far, that phenomenon couldn't be accounted for in another way.
Am I wrong in thinking that it's also a prediction of M-Theory? Not sure about that, and don't have time to web search it right now.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
If they discover that gravity is weak because some of it is leaking out, let's hope they also find out why it is not balanced by gravity leaking back in.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696 |
If they discover that gravity is weak because some of it is leaking out, let's hope they also find out why it is not balanced by gravity leaking back in. [Quote=Mike Kremer] How would they detect whether Gravity is "leaking out, or even back in", ...for that matter. No pun intended. How does one even detect a change in the local gravity of particles that have collided at close to the speed of light?....I have no idea. Am I right to suggest that when two particles approach each other, at the speed of gravity.....that the effect of gravity between each of them becomes less? That is less,.. than if the two particles were near each other, but at rest?
. . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Unfortunately the metaresearch web site seems to be full of crackpot ideas that don't meet any of the requirements of science. So I wouldn't pay much attention to any suggestion from them that gravity travels at any other speed than C (approximately 3*10^8 m/s, 186,000 m/s). I seem to recall seeing this one go by before and I don't have any more faith in it now than I did then.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696 |
Unfortunately the metaresearch web site seems to be full of crackpot ideas that don't meet any of the requirements of science. So I wouldn't pay much attention to any suggestion from them that gravity travels at any other speed than C (approximately 3*10^8 m/s, 186,000 m/s). I seem to recall seeing this one go by before and I don't have any more faith in it now than I did then.
Bill Gill
Mike Kremer asks the question, "Who states that Gravity has any speed at all?"
I have always thought that its always around us, always here as long as there is matter in our vicinity.
Is'nt Gravity proportionate to the amount of matter in our area?.
Or to put it another way the size/mass of the body we are standing upon?
How could you possibly prove that Gravity has speed?
Yes I have read ideas that Gravity is instantaneous But thats because someone posits the immediate disappearance of the Sun.
Causing the Planets to theoreticaly and instantly fly off....... out of their trajectorys into space.
Its clearly impossible for the Sun to be made to disappear, so one could never prove that gravity 'has speed'
I know they are still looking for gravitons....but prehaps they are all around us. Invisibly bound to matter, rather like a magnetic field is to a magnet?
I mean Sun or no Sun, we will still be gravitationaly bound to this Earth
Even if the Sun was to be blown up into a thousand pieces we would just be a 'wandering Planet' floating out there in the void of space, but we would still weigh the same as before.
Another reason I think that Gravity is fixed and just all around us, is
because the only way I know how to get rid of gravity is to dig down
into the center of the Earth.
There is absolutely no gravity at the center of the Earth, or in the center of a Black Hole for that matter, if my idea is correct.
So, now you are standing within the center of the Earth, if you start digging down a few yards you should find
a very very weak gravity getting minutely stronger as you keep digging.
Gravity for us depends upon where we are situated.
For example we weigh differently standing at the equator than at the Poles.
So who needs Gravity's Speed?
. . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
There is absolutely no gravity at the center of the Earth, or in the center of a Black Hole for that matter, if my idea is correct. But there is gravity there, it is just that the mass of the Earth surrounds you, and therefore the gravity is pulling in equal amounts in all directions, so you are effectively in free fall. Gravity for us depends upon where we are situated. Gravity doesn't depend on where we are situated. The effect of gravity depends on where we are situated. If we are on the surface of the Earth we have one weight, if we are on the surface of the Moon we have a different weight, but exactly the same mass. A common problem most people have is associating weight and mass. Weight is a measure of the force holding you down, mass is a measure of how much of you there is. On the surface of the Earth mass and weight can be used almost interchangeably, but when you leave the surface weight can be very different, with no change in mass. As far as the speed of gravity is concerned, there is no convincing evidence that it doesn't travel at C. Since it has been clearly demonstrated that all the other forces do travel at C it is going to be hard to convince any reputable scientist, or me, that gravity doesn't. It will take a really outstanding demonstration to show it doesn't, and it will turn the field of General Relativity (GR) on its head. There are ongoing efforts to measure gravitational waves, but they are hard to detect. Compared to, for example, the electromagnetic force gravity is extremely weak. And therefore it is very hard to detect. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Since it has been clearly demonstrated that all the other forces do travel at C.... Then some poorly informed old codger comes along and says: 'ang on a tick, mate, gravity i'nt a force. 
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Well, if gravity isn't a force what is it that causes an object to fall in accordance with F=ma? It certainly seems to have been acting like a force for low these 13.7 billion years?
So you can just tell the old codger to buzz off.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
David Deutsch (The Fabric of Reality) argues that there is no gravitational force. “In the nineteenth century, few things would have been regarded more confidently as real than the force of gravity. Not only did it figure in Newton’s then-unrivalled system of laws, but everyone could feel it, all the time, even with their eyes shut – or so they thought. Today we understand gravity through Einstein’s theory rather than Newton’s, and we know that no such force exists. We do not feel it! What we feel is the resistance that prevents us from penetrating the solid ground beneath our feet. Nothing is pulling us downwards. The only reason why we fall downwards when unsupported is the fabric of space and time in which we exist is curved.”
That seems pretty clear.
There “…is no such force. We do not feel it! Nothing is pulling us downwards.”
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Well, for something that isn't there it sure has some great effects. The thing is that whether you call it a force or a field it still causes things to happen just like a force. So maybe you need to keep in mind one of the big things about modern physics. That is the duality of nature. In QM things can be viewed either as particles or as waves. So gravity can probably be viewed as a force or a distortion of spacetime. So don't get your knickers in a twist trying to confidently define what something is, there is no way to write down a concrete definition of most anything. Maybe someday they will come up with something that ties everything together, but when they do it will be couched in such abstruse mathematics that most people can't really follow it. Then we will have to invent some new analogies to try to explain it. In the meantime I will keep right on talking about the force of gravity, because that is something I can kind of grasp. But when I talk about it from a GR perspective I will talk about warped spacetime.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
In the meantime I will keep right on talking about the force of gravity, because that is something I can kind of grasp. But when I talk about it from a GR perspective I will talk about warped spacetime. That strikes me as an eminently sensible attitude. The thing I have problems with is the frequency with which experts state categorically that it is not a force. I think I have posted elsewhere that, in my own mind, I can make a logical case for gravity being a force, and can find a source for it. Naturally, when a non-expert like myself has an idea that seems not to fit the accepted view, there is a tendency to think "I must have got that wrong", so I pester others to see if I can get it straight.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Bit late into this one Bill.S and sorry because of my language barrier hope this makes sense.
The problem with a gravity being a force at science is you need energy at some point to exert a force.
I have no problem with it being a force but there are those who say until you can find the energy you can't exert a force because work is applying a force to an object and the object moving in the direction the force is applied. Work needs energy ... conservation of energy!!!!
So as to not violate the 1st law of thermo simple lets make gravity not a force makes perfect sense doesn't it :-)
This is the whole energy driving the universe problem again and those pesky friedmann equations you love :-)
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
